Interspecies comparison of alveolar bone biology: Tooth extraction socket healing in mini pigs and mice.
bone biology
bone regeneration
periodontal regeneration
stomatology
wound healing
Journal
Journal of periodontology
ISSN: 1943-3670
Titre abrégé: J Periodontol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8000345
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
received:
20
11
2019
revised:
24
02
2020
accepted:
10
03
2020
pubmed:
30
4
2020
medline:
20
2
2021
entrez:
30
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
in an effort to identify and validate which animal models are best suited for dental implant research, we used multiscale analyses to examine tooth extraction wound healing in a well-accepted model, the Yucatan mini pig and a more controversial model, the laboratory mouse. first molar extractions were performed in adult, skeletally mature mini pigs and mice. Alveolar bone repair was evaluated at early, intermediate and late timepoints using quantitative micro-computed tomographic (μCT) imaging, histology, molecular, and cellular assays. Vital dye labeling was employed to quantify mineral apposition rates (MAR) in both species. Despite a 3000-fold difference in weight, the relative proportions of the mini pig and murine maxillae and are equivalent. Quantitative μCT demonstrated that within the posterior alveolar bone, the volume of mineralized bone was lower in mini pig than in the mice; during healing, however, the bone volume fraction was equivalent. The histologic appearance of healing sites was also comparable, and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and tartrate resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) staining showed a similar temporal and spatial distribution of bone remodeling. Vital dye labeling indicated equivalent MAR between the species. The absolute duration of the healing period differed: in mice, complete healing was accomplished in ∼21 days. In mini pigs, the same process took four times longer. Extraction socket healing is histologically equivalent between mini pigs and mice, supporting the hypothesis that the underlying mechanisms of alveolar bone healing are conserved among species.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
in an effort to identify and validate which animal models are best suited for dental implant research, we used multiscale analyses to examine tooth extraction wound healing in a well-accepted model, the Yucatan mini pig and a more controversial model, the laboratory mouse.
METHODS
first molar extractions were performed in adult, skeletally mature mini pigs and mice. Alveolar bone repair was evaluated at early, intermediate and late timepoints using quantitative micro-computed tomographic (μCT) imaging, histology, molecular, and cellular assays. Vital dye labeling was employed to quantify mineral apposition rates (MAR) in both species.
RESULTS
Despite a 3000-fold difference in weight, the relative proportions of the mini pig and murine maxillae and are equivalent. Quantitative μCT demonstrated that within the posterior alveolar bone, the volume of mineralized bone was lower in mini pig than in the mice; during healing, however, the bone volume fraction was equivalent. The histologic appearance of healing sites was also comparable, and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and tartrate resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) staining showed a similar temporal and spatial distribution of bone remodeling. Vital dye labeling indicated equivalent MAR between the species. The absolute duration of the healing period differed: in mice, complete healing was accomplished in ∼21 days. In mini pigs, the same process took four times longer.
CONCLUSIONS
Extraction socket healing is histologically equivalent between mini pigs and mice, supporting the hypothesis that the underlying mechanisms of alveolar bone healing are conserved among species.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32347546
doi: 10.1002/JPER.19-0667
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1653-1663Informations de copyright
© 2020 American Academy of Periodontology.
Références
Erdogan O, Ustun Y, Tatli U, Damlar I, Daglioglu K. A pig model for the histomorphometric evaluation of hard tissue around dental implants. J Oral Implantol. 2013;39:551-557.
Wancket LM. Animal models for evaluation of bone implants and devices: comparative bone structure and common model uses. Vet Pathol. 2015;52:842-850.
Pearce AI, Richards RG, Milz S, Schneider E, Pearce SG. Animal models for implant biomaterial research in bone: a review. Eur Cell Mater. 2007;13:1-10.
Kilian M, Chapple IL, Hannig M, et al. The oral microbiome - an update for oral healthcare professionals. Br Dent J. 2016;221:657-666.
Noden DM. The control of avian cephalic neural crest cytodifferentiation. I. Skeletal and connective tissues. Dev Biol. 1978;67:296-312.
Bradaschia-Correa V, Leclerc K, Josephson AM, et al. Hox gene expression determines cell fate of adult periosteal stem/progenitor cells. Sci Rep. 2019;9:5043.
Leucht P, Kim J-B, Amasha RR, Girod SA, Helms JA. Embryonic origin and Hox status determine progenitor cell fate during adult bone regeneration. Development. 2008;135:2845-2854.
Mouraret S, Von Kaeppler E, Bardet C, et al. The potential for vertical bone regeneration via maxillary periosteal elevation. J Clin Periodontol. 2014;41:1170-1177.
Bagi CM, Berryman E, Moalli MR. Comparative bone anatomy of commonly used laboratory animals: implications for drug discovery. Comp Med. 2011;61:76-85.
Jowsey J. Studies of Haversian systems in man and some animals. J Anat. 1966;100:857-864.
Cone SG, Warren PB, Fisher MB. Rise of the pigs: utilization of the porcine model to study musculoskeletal biomechanics and tissue engineering during skeletal growth. Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 2017;23:763-780.
Turner AS. Animal models of osteoporosis-necessity and limitations. Eur Cell Mater. 2001;1:66-81.
Frost HM, Jee WS. On the rat model of human osteopenias and osteoporoses. Bone Miner. 1992;18:227-236.
Parfitt AM. Osteonal and hemi-osteonal remodeling: the spatial and temporal framework for signal traffic in adult human bone. J Cell Biochem. 1994;55:273-286.
Parfitt AM, Mundy GR, Roodman GD, Hughes DE, Boyce BF. A new model for the regulation of bone resorption, with particular reference to the effects of bisphosphonates. J Bone Miner Res. 1996;11:150-159.
Kragstrup J, Melsen F. Three-dimensional morphology of trabecular bone osteons reconstructed from serial sections. Metab Bone Dis Relat Res. 1983;5:127-130.
van Oers RF, Ruimerman R, Tanck E, Hilbers PA, Huiskes R. A unified theory for osteonal and hemi-osteonal remodeling. Bone. 2008;42:250-259.
Burr DB, Akkus O. Bone morphology and organization. In: Burr DB, Allen MR, eds. Basic and Applied Bone Biology. San Diego: Academic; 2014:3-25.
Slyfield CR, Tkachenko EV, Wilson DL, Hernandez CJ. Three-dimensional dynamic bone histomorphometry. J Bone Miner Res. 2012;27:486-495.
Shipov A, Zaslansky P, Riesemeier H, Segev G, Atkins A, Shahar R. Unremodeled endochondral bone is a major architectural component of the cortical bone of the rat (Rattus norvegicus). J Struct Biol. 2013;183:132-140.
Erben RG. Trabecular and endocortical bone surfaces in the rat: modeling or remodeling. Anat Rec. 1996;246:39-46.
Karp NA, Meehan TF, Morgan H, et al. Applying the ARRIVE guidelines to an in vivo database. PLoS Biol. 2015;13:e1002151.
Bouxsein ML, Boyd SK, Christiansen BA, Guldberg RE, Jepsen KJ, Muller R. Guidelines for assessment of bone microstructure in rodents using micro-computed tomography. J Bone Miner Res. 2010;25:1468-1486.
Drake FH, Dodds RA, James IE, et al. Cathepsin K, but not cathepsins B, L, or S, is abundantly expressed in human osteoclasts. J Biol Chem. 1996;271:12511-12516.
Robling AG, Castillo AB, Turner CH. Biomechanical and molecular regulation of bone remodeling. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2006;8:455-498.
Hahn M, Vogel M, Pompesius-Kempa M, Delling G. Trabecular bone pattern factor-a new parameter for simple quantification of bone microarchitecture. Bone. 1992;13:327-330.
Liu Y, Li Z, Arioka M, Wang L, Bao C, Helms JA. WNT3A accelerates delayed alveolar bone repair in ovariectomized mice. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30:1873-1885.
Aghvami M, Brunski JB, Serdar Tulu U, Chen CH, Helms JA. A thermal and biological analysis of bone drilling. J Biomech Eng. 2018:140, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4040312.
Devlin H, Horner K, Ledgerton D. A comparison of maxillary and mandibular bone mineral densities. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;79:323-327.
Monje A, Gonzalez-Garcia R, Monje F, et al. Microarchitectural pattern of pristine maxillary bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30:125-132.
Marsell R, Einhorn TA. The biology of fracture healing. Injury. 2011;42:551-555.
Whyte JL, Smith AA, Liu B, et al. Augmenting endogenous Wnt signaling improves skin wound healing. PLoS One. 2013;8:e76883.
Yuan X, Xu Q, Zhang X, Van Brunt LA, Ticha P, Helms JA. Wnt-responsive stem cell fates in the oral mucosa. iScience. 2019;21:84-94.
Simmons D. The use of animal models in studying genetic disease: transgenesis and induced mutation. Nat Educ. 2008;1(1):70. https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-use-of-animal-models-in-studying-855/. Available at.
Blanco-Arias P, Sargent CA, Affara NA. A comparative analysis of the pig, mouse, and human PCDHX genes. Mamm Genome. 2004;15:296-306.
Libby P. Murine “model” monotheism: an iconoclast at the altar of mouse. Circ Res. 2015;117:921-925.
Gutierrez K, Dicks N, Glanzner WG, Agellon LB, Bordignon V. Efficacy of the porcine species in biomedical research. Front Genet. 2015;6:293.
Sun Z, Herring SW, Tee BC, Gales J. Alveolar ridge reduction after tooth extraction in adolescents: an animal study. Arch Oral Biol. 2013;58:813-825.
Kantarci A, Hasturk H, Van Dyke TE. Animal models for periodontal regeneration and peri-implant responses. Periodontol 2000. 2015;68:66-82.
Yuan X, Pei X, Zhao Y, Tulu US, Liu B, Helms JA. A Wnt-responsive PDL population effectuates extraction socket healing. J Dent Res. 2018;97(7):803-809.
Mouraret S, Hunter DJ, Bardet C, Brunski JB, Bouchard P, Helms JA. A pre-clinical murine model of oral implant osseointegration. Bone. 2013;58:177-184.
Yin X, Li J, Hoffmann W, Gasser A, Brunski JB, Helms JA. Mechanical and biological advantages of a Tri-Oval implant design. J Clin Med. 2019;8:427.
Chen CH, Coyac BR, Arioka M, et al. A novel osteotomy preparation technique to preserve implant site viability and enhance osteogenesis. J Clin Med. 2019;8(2):170.
Chapter in a book. Russell WMS, Burch RL, eds. Chapter in a book. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. London: Methuen; 1959:69-146.
Baumans V. Use of animals in experimental research: an ethical dilemma. Gene Ther. 2004;11:S64-S66.